{"id":181,"date":"2009-12-07T15:53:03","date_gmt":"2009-12-07T22:53:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/crossalone.us\/?page_id=181"},"modified":"2009-12-07T15:53:14","modified_gmt":"2009-12-07T22:53:14","slug":"speaking-about-homosexuality","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/crossalone.us\/?page_id=181","title":{"rendered":"Speaking about Homosexuality"},"content":{"rendered":"

by Donald H. Juel<\/strong><\/p>\n

Printable PDF<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

It need hardly be noted that dealing with matters as intimate and as fundamental as human \t\t\t\tsexuality requires considerable delicacy. Participants in such conversations have much \t\t\t\tof themselves invested. \u201cDispassionate\u201d discussions are thus inconceivable given the \t\t\t\tstakes, unless participants completely abstract themselves from their own situations and their own \t\t\t\texperience \u2013 in \t\t\t\twhich case it may fairly be charged that such discussions are probably dishonest and \t\t\t\tare surely evasions of real conversation. We all come to these discussions, however reluctantly, \t\t\twith experiences and ideas and biases.<\/p>\n

It is possible to converse about matters in which we have heavy \t\t\t\temotional and personal investment. In such cases, however, the ground rules for the discussion \t\t\t\tand the resources for the conversation must be clearly spelled out. We must be clear \t\t\tabout what will count as a good reason for one view or another.<\/p>\n

The resources for our discussion include \t\t\t\tthe Scriptures, which are the \u201cnorming norm,\u201d the \t\t\t\tconfessions and historical experience of the church, human experience, and finally personal \t\t\t\texperience. Clarity about how the various sources are interrelated is not given in advance; it must \t\t\tbe argued. Of particular significance is the way in which the Scriptures function as norm.<\/p>\n

The Issue<\/strong><\/p>\n

Our discussion should not attempt too much. The particular issue which has been brought \t\t\t\tbefore the church has to do with the ordination of homosexual persons. A decision has \t\t\t\tbeen made about how to deal with the issue; at the very least, our conversation should \t\t\t\ttake that as a matter requiring reflection. The policy regarding ordination has been \t\t\t\tspelled out because the issue was raised by homosexual persons. The church has thus been \t\t\tforced to speak about matters it has chosen to deal with at a personal \u2013 and often unexamined \u2013 level.<\/p>\n

What \t\t\t\thas been asked of us as a seminary faculty is thus first how to think about the matter \t\t\t\tof ordaining homosexual persons. That reflection will necessarily require reflection \t\t\t\tabout matters of human sexuality, though it need not await a definitive statement about everything. \t\t\t\tGiven our tradition, it is a bit difficult to imagine what such a \u201cdefinitive\u201d statement \t\t\t\twould look like or who would make it. We ought rather to think of our task modestly. We need \t\t\t\tto help pastors and congregations think about particular forms of sexual expression in \t\t\t\tthis particular setting \u2013 offering \t\t\tperhaps some guidelines for thinking together about other matters as well.<\/p>\n

For the church \t\t\t\tto \u201cknow its mind\u201d on this matter, public discussion is the only possible \t\t\t\troute. We have no pope, no college of bishops, no teachers charged with speaking for \t\t\t\tthe church. We can only make arguments to one another with the conviction that God\u2019s will will \t\t\temerge from the discussion.<\/p>\n

In view of the complexity of the discussion, clarity about \t\t\t\tterms is necessary. As presently used, \u201chomosexuality\u201d is not a useful word. It is a \t\t\t\tmodern word, used to speak of an \u201corientation\u201d or \t\t\t\tself-understanding which may or may not result in particular acts of genital expression. \t\t\t\tThe scriptural terminology \u2013 and the language of virtually the whole of our tradition \u2013 is \t\t\t\tmore precise: it speaks of particular types of genital expression. If we must use the \t\t\t\tterm, \u201chomosexuals\u201d should \t\t\t\trefer to people who do particular things \u2013 in this case, engaging in genital intimacy with \t\t\tpeople of the same gender.<\/p>\n

It would be most helpful for our conversation to speak about \u201chomosexuality\u201d in \t\t\t\tthis respect, just as we would speak of \u201cheterosexuality\u201d in terms of genital intimacy \t\t\t\twith persons of the opposite gender. The scriptures, the tradition of the church, and \t\t\t\tour present church policy thus speak about actions, not orientations \u2013 or rather, people who \t\t\tact in particular ways.<\/p>\n

The Starting Point<\/strong><\/p>\n

It is our proposal that the matter of homosexual behavior be discussed first \t\t\t\tof all as a public issue \u2013 as something in which the whole society has a stake. That is to \t\t\t\tdissent from a prevalent view that sexual expression is essentially private and belongs \t\t\t\tin the realm of individual preference. There should not be much disagreement about this among Christians \t\t\t\tfamiliar with the scriptures and the tradition, where matters of sexual propriety are always discussed \t\t\t\tas community business. Society has everything invested in the relationship between men and women, \t\t\t\tand it has generally taken great care to protect and regulate those relationships in such ways that \t\t\twill preserve its investments.<\/p>\n

In theological terms, that is simply a way of saying that homosexual \t\t\tbehavior should be discussed as a matter of law.<\/p>\n

The statement requires some comment. \t\t\t\tThe matter at issue is not whether or not persons who commit homosexual acts can be saved. \t\t\t\tDiscussing the propriety of divorce or murder and the appropriate steps society must \t\t\t\ttake to deal with divorced persons or murderers can be done without suggesting that the availability \t\t\t\tof the gospel to either group is at stake. The propriety of homosexual acts can be discussed without \t\t\t\tprejudging the nature of the church\u2019s ministry to homosexual persons. \t\t\t\tAgain using the language of the-tradition, we can distinguish between law and gospel \t\t\t\twithout collapsing one into the other. Much confusion has arisen within the church because \t\t\tthese distinctions are not made.<\/p>\n

If we can agree that the discussion of homosexual acts belongs properly \t\t\t\twithin the realm of legal discussion \u2013 that is, that it has to do with the rights of society \t\t\t\tand the well-being of the neighbor \u2013 we will have taken a crucial first step. That will not \t\t\t\tsettle the issue, but it will surely provide direction to the discussion. The critical \t\t\t\tissue will then be how we think about matters within the realm of the law \u2013 and in particular, \t\t\tthe matter of homosexual acts.<\/p>\n

In practical terms, it means that discussions within the church cannot \t\t\t\tbegin with particular instances and individual experience. That may work in law courts, \t\t\t\twhere lawyers and judges presumably know the law and seek to understand a particular \t\t\t\tcase within that framework. Within the church, \u201cthe \t\t\t\tlaw\u201d (understood in scriptural and traditional terms as the structures by which God preserves \t\t\t\tthe created order from destruction and orders human life) is what is least clear. We \t\t\t\twould do a great service to the church by providing an example of how to think about \t\t\t\tindividual behavior within the realm of the law. We may expect difficulty here in a society that \t\t\t\tis committed to individual rights and often seems powerless to think productively and creatively \t\t\t\tabout the well\u2014being \t\t\t\tof the neighbor.<\/p>\n

Ground Rules for Reflection \u201cUnder the Law\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

1. Our tradition has spoken of the \u201corders \t\t\t\tof creation,\u201d but it has never insisted on \t\t\t\tany single detailed exposition of those orders. While matters of human sexual expression \t\t\t\tare dealt with in the OT as matters of \u201claw\u201d as revealed by God, the narratives indicate \t\t\t\thow this \u201claw\u201d arises \t\t\t\tfrom human experience as well and how transgression of it brings suffering and death. \t\t\t\tLikewise, in Jewish tradition the \u201crevealed law\u201d requires exposition and application. \t\t\t\tAnd that process is largely one of community reason. The Mishnah and the Talmuds are \t\t\t\tthe authorized community reflection on matters of religious law. In such discussions, the law becomes \t\t\treal in the experience of particular communities.<\/p>\n

2. In the OT codes, in the table of duties in Eph \t\t\t\tand Col and I Peter, the structuring of the world takes special pains to protect family \t\t\t\tlife. It is presumed that the world must be ordered, and that at the center of the structures \t\t\t\tare parents and children. Husbands, wives, and children are assigned roles. Wives and children in \t\t\t\tparticular are accorded protection from faithless fathers and husbands (this is particularly true \t\t\t\tof the prohibition of divorce in Mark 10). Gender roles are ordered to foster the raising \t\t\t\tof children \u2013 a matter \t\t\t\tin which society has everything at stake. And they are discussed in a ways that seeks \t\t\tto make ordered life possible.<\/p>\n

3. What is \u201cnatural\u201d is determined by particular societies. \t\t\t\tBecause there are important investments in the natural order, boundaries are drawn and \t\t\t\tmaintained by threat of punishment. Quarantines isolate those with diseases that threaten the rest \t\t\t\tof the community; laws protect the weak from exploitation by the strong. In the same way, men and \t\t\t\twomen who establish families are safeguarded \u2013 hemmed \t\t\tin \u2013 by laws.<\/p>\n

It is worth noting that such sentences are seldom found in discussions of sexual \t\t\t\tbehavior, at least at the popular level to which most people have access. Our society \t\t\t\thas its own particular ways of defining what is natural and what is aberrant. In discussions \t\t\t\tof homosexual behavior, for example, many turn to social scientists for a definition of what is natural. \t\t\t\tBased on \u201cnew\u201d evidence, \t\t\t\tpsychologists will now speak of-a \u201cbroad range of sexual expression\u201d rather than acceptable \t\t\t\tand unacceptable behavior. One might observe a decided change in the so-called scientific \t\t\t\tcommunity whose opinions are sought. While anthropologists and sociologists are included \t\t\t\tin the conversation, it has been psychologists and psychiatrists who have dominated popular thinking \t\t\t\tabout \u201cnature.\u201d Discussions \t\t\t\tof natural inclinations or orientations suggest that the determining factors in sexual \t\t\t\tbehavior are located within individuals, not societies. The right of individuals to self-expressions \t\t\twould then seem to be the ultimate good.<\/p>\n

Christians should insist, however, that value \t\t\t\tjudgments regarding individual behavior be made from the vantage point of impact on others. \t\t\t\tIt is quite reasonable, therefore, to speak of a \u201cnatural\u201d inclination (meaning that \t\t\t\tit can be observed in nature) while condemning actions arising from that inclination as unnatural \t\t\tor abhorrent if they are damaging to the neighbor.<\/p>\n

4. While men and women do not have to marry, and \t\t\t\twhile all married couples do not have to have children, the future of the society will \t\t\t\tforever depend upon parents providing support and nurture for children. Society thus \t\t\t\tprovides favored conditions and considerable support and protection for families. And while there \t\t\t\tare many roles that can be assumed by either men or women, only women can bear children. That fact \t\t\t\twill always remain important in the structuring of society. This is perhaps the main reason why marriage \t\t\thas been established as a legal institution.<\/p>\n

5. The observation that the Bible does not say much about \t\t\t\thomosexual behavior (and nothing about homosexual orientation) is susceptible of more \t\t\t\tthan one interpretation. The presence of such terms as arsenokoites in traditional lists \t\t\t\tof vices categorizes such behavior as out of bounds. The lack of discussion of such practice suggests \t\t\t\tit is so abhorrent to society as not to require detailed discussion. There is no extended discussion \t\t\t\tof intercourse with animals or children because it is unnecessary. The risk of such behavior \t\t\tto society is obvious to all.<\/p>\n

6. In the discussions about human behavior, the creative \t\t\t\tpower of language has rarely been appreciated. Our language can shape the way we experience \t\t\t\tthe world. We know, for example, that a word for a disposition to preference for members \t\t\t\tof the same gender was invented in the 19th century. \u201cHomosexuality\u201d appears \t\t\t\tin English first in the 1890\u2019s. This may be read as an attempt further to protect society from \t\t\t\ta perceived perversion. But it may also be viewed as-a further breakdown of social realities \t\t\t\tinto psychological. Such abstract \u201corientations\u201d suggest that people \u201care\u201d essentially \t\t\t\twhat they imagine. Scientists feed the theory by providing more and more imaginative \t\t\t\torientations. It may be that in other societies, people cannot even imagine what it would \t\t\t\tbe like to be a \u201chomosexual\u201d because \t\t\t\tthe possibility does not exist in the language. What is important in such social systems \t\t\tis not reflection on human self-reflection, but the well-being of the neighbor.<\/p>\n

A professor \t\t\t\tfrom Madagascar, for example, pointed out that in his native language, the only words \t\t\t\tavailable to speak of what we term sexuality were words that described intercourse between \t\t\t\tmales and females. Both genders are included in the words. While people in his society are familiar \t\t\t\twith other forms of intercourse \u2013 say, with animals, it is always clear to the imagination \t\t\t\tthat the partner in the sexual act is a substitute for the proper partner. Any forms \t\t\t\tof sexual intimacy outside that of a male with a female are necessarily viewed as aberrant. \t\t\tThe language offers no other possibilities to the imagination.<\/p>\n

Language that speaks of acts is thus \t\t\t\tprimary. Homosexuality as an \u201corientation\u201d exists \t\t\t\tat all only because we have provided a word for it. That scientists are unable precisely \t\t\t\tto identify \u201chomosexuality\u201d is \t\t\t\thardly surprising. That will require mythologization. While such a process may hold its \t\t\t\town fascination, the primary stake Christians have in the discussion is the well-being \t\t\tof the neighbor. It is the acts that are of concern.<\/p>\n

7. The primary question is, therefore, to what \t\t\t\textent the safeguarding of gender distinctions is basic to society. Analogies to this \t\t\t\tkind of reasoning are not difficult to find. Though men may be \u201cnaturally\u201d inclined to \t\t\t\thave intercourse with every woman, for the well-being of society laws regulate sexual behavior. Though \t\t\t\tsome may be inclined to have intercourse with children, they are required by society to suppress \t\t\t\tor sublimate their natural urges upon pain of punishment. From the vantage point of the law, it is \t\t\t\tirrelevant what is \u201cnatural\u201d to them. That may be \t\t\trelevant for treatment and socialization.<\/p>\n

Some may object to the analogies. Their validity \t\t\t\tdepends upon the views of a society. Are there good reasons to believe one thing or another? \t\t\t\tThe persistent use of -\u201dhomophobia\u201d suggests \t\t\t\tthat suspicion of same-gender intercourse is a malady. But why is not \u201chealthy suspicion\u201d a \t\t\t\tmore appropriate designation of society\u2019s aversion to same-gender intercourse? Human society \t\t\t\tis fragile. Relations between men and women are complex \u2013 and everything depends upon a salutary \t\t\t\tordering of those relations. There may be good reasons to suspect that a confusion of \t\t\t\tgender roles, if sanctioned by society, can do enormous damage to the whole society. \t\t\t\tThat would seem to be the collective wisdom of our tradition.<\/p>\n

An example makes the danger clear. In \t\t\t\tmany societies other than our own, men are much freer physically with one another. A \t\t\t\tmissionary noted that in Ethiopia, men regularly embrace, hold hands, even kiss one another. Such \t\t\t\tbehavior is acceptable because homosexual intercourse is taboo. And because it is unthinkable, there \t\t\t\tis freedom in relationships. The lack of such fixed boundaries in our society means that we dare \t\t\t\tnot be free with one another. Women cannot trust men \u2013 even \t\t\t\tpastors \u2013 to respect intimate boundaries. Children cannot trust adults, even parents. Physical \t\t\t\tgestures can be misunderstood because there is no clear system of values. The result \t\t\t\tis quite the opposite of a free society; it is a society in which any kind of physical intimacy becomes \t\t\t\tthreatening.<\/p>\n

There are many issues to consider. We would surely agree that the \u201cgood\u201d can be discussed \t\t\t\tin relative terms. If there must be same-gender sexual expression (as there will be divorce), \t\t\t\tcommitted relationships will be more salutary than non-committed. What is requested of church and \t\t\t\tsociety, however, is an affirmation of same-sex genital intimacy as a legitimate form of expression. \t\t\t\tOne might ask how that will benefit society. Arguments have been offered in the scriptures and in \t\t\t\tthe tradition of the church. We can articulate reasons why society can suffer by the confusion of \t\t\t\tgender roles. In the absence of sound reasons why the approval of homosexual intercourse will benefit \t\t\t\tsociety, there seems little reason to make radical changes in policy or to tempt young people unduly \t\t\t\tby planting in their imaginations suggestions about destructive life-styles from which they cannot \t\t\t\tprotect themselves.<\/p>\n

In our deliberations, the wisdom of scripture and the tradition cannot be cited \t\t\t\tas \u201cGod\u2019s \t\t\t\tanswer\u201d to the matter, but neither ought that wisdom be summarily dismissed as irrelevant or \t\t\t\toutdated. And if we cannot find compelling reasons to dismiss such views about homosexual \t\t\t\tpractice, the church is obligated out of concern for the well-being of society to refuse to ordain \t\t\t\thomosexual persons to public ministry or to endorse homosexual practice as legitimate expression \t\t\t\tof one\u2019s \t\t\t\tsexuality.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

by Donald H. Juel Printable PDF It need hardly be noted that dealing with matters as intimate and as fundamental as human sexuality requires considerable delicacy. Participants in such conversations have much of themselves invested. \u201cDispassionate\u201d discussions are thus inconceivable given the stakes, unless participants completely abstract themselves from their own situations and their own […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":5,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-181","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/crossalone.us\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/181","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/crossalone.us\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/crossalone.us\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/crossalone.us\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/crossalone.us\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=181"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/crossalone.us\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/181\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":185,"href":"https:\/\/crossalone.us\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/181\/revisions\/185"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/crossalone.us\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/5"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/crossalone.us\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=181"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}